So stop me........Sony Alpha 65

[Druid]

Isn't advertising good nowadays? I've found myself falling for the hype surrounding this camera and I'm told of loads of great, informative, positive reasons why I should buy it and I dismiss the rediculous, unfounded, anti Sony negatives......there I go again.

Can anyone put me off this? Don't forget there's no better camera for the money..........damn!

[Simpo Two]

If you want it, buy it.

What's it got that the others haven't got that you need?

[Druid]

24.3 megapixel resolution

I can give you the spec of it all day long!

[_dobbo_]

Decent lenses more expensive than Canon/Nikon alternative? i.e. total cost of ownership higher over the lifetime of the camera, lower second hand value.

Out of interest, why do you need 24 megapixels?

[onomatopoeia]

You shouldn't buy one if you think you will need certain £5000+ lenses in future (e.g. 400/2.8, 200/2, 800/5.6) as Sony don't make any of those. This is what the "lack of lenses" that some Canon and Nikon owners talk about actually translates to in the real world.

Other than that, buy one. Any lens that the camera can detect will be stabilised, you don't need to buy IS lenses, you get the option of Zeiss glass that autofocuses (not available on Canon and Nikon) and some of it is superb (ZA 135/1.8 for example) and all the focal lengths that most people use are well covered, both by Sony, s/h Minolta as well as Tamron and Sigma.

[Druid]

_dobbo_ said:

Out of interest, why do you need 24 megapixels?

Imagine how good my photographs will be! The Alpha 77 is the same resolution at double the price so value for money is excellent....isn't it?

[Druid]

onomatopoeia said:

You shouldn't buy one if you think you will need certain £5000+ lenses in future (e.g. 400/2.8, 200/2, 800/5.6) as Sony don't make any of those. This is what the "lack of lenses" that some Canon and Nikon owners talk about actually translates to in the real world.

Other than that, buy one. Any lens that the camera can detect will be stabilised, you don't need to buy IS lenses, you get the option of Zeiss glass that autofocuses (not available on Canon and Nikon) and some of it is superb (ZA 135/1.8 for example) and all the focal lengths that most people use are well covered, both by Sony, s/h Minolta as well as Tamron and Sigma.

Positives outweigh the negatives there then, no, hang on £5k lenses won't be required, so no negatives after all. It's a great camera!

[jimmy156]

Druid said:

Imagine how good my photographs will be! The Alpha 77 is the same resolution at double the price so value for money is excellent....isn't it?

mega-pixels aren't everything, there is a reason why the £5000 Pro Canon 1dX is only 18mp!

[Druid]

jimmy156 said:

mega-pixels aren't everything, there is a reason why the £5000 Pro Canon 1dX is only 18mp!

No they certainly aren't theres also groundbreaking Translucent Mirror Technology, you can focus and shoot simultaneously and continuous shooting of up to 10 frames per second!

[GetCarter]

You want some downsides to this camera?

Here are DP reviews 'cons'

* In-camera JPEGs don't show off the 24MP sensor to its best extent
* Comparatively strong noise reduction at medium and high ISO settings
* Very noisy raw files at high ISO settings
* Little control over high ISO noise reduction in JPEG mode ('auto' or 'weak')
* Limited control in 10 fps continuous shooting and movie modes
* No live view in 8 or 10 fps continuous shooting modes makes accurate panning very difficult
* Slightly 'laggy' menu system and UI
* Slightly counterintuitive setting of aperture in manual mode
* Awkward to navigate between stills and movie playback modes

Looks like a good camera mind. As good as or better than the equiv Nikon & Canon.

Why wouldn't I buy one? Because when one starts building up a collection of lenses & equipment (which one tends to get locked into), I would prefer not to be in the Sony brand. I'd go for the market leaders every time. More products, more second hand, better choice etc.

[Craikeybaby]

This SLT stuff is great for impressive specs and marketing, but has anyone actually looked through the view finder? I thought it looked rubbish, compared to even the lower end Canons.

[Mr Whippy]

I just bought an A77 kit yesterday.

One of my main reasons is the video feature set which makes it much more usable to get good quality results on your own. I've used both the 5D.2, 7D, some other cheaper Canon, and Nikon stuff for doing video, and the A77 immediately feels like it's there to help you get good video (audio is still pants like all SLR video stuff)



From a pure picture POV, a raw is 24meg. I've just put mine down to 6mpix and fine setting for jpg and the images still look great. 24mpix just feels to add more data for more noise.
Probably ok in a bright scene where you can get the ISO down, the exposure time right down, and the pixels you captured are all as useful as possible. But that is rare in many photography cases.
It does seem noisy in the dark, but no more than an SLR from say 3 years ago. In 24mpix it's obvious, but at the intermediate resolution it doesn't seem as bad. If you want to shoot fast moving night stuff, then I guess you'd not buy this camera hehe.


Doesn't feel as nice from a feelsome quality POV as the good Canon and good Nikon stuff. The ergonomics feel a bit iffy... but I guess that is just what I'm used to. I still think Nikon are better than Canon by a fair old way, with Sony not that far behind Canon (my perspective to put the Sony in it's place, it's not THAT bad)

But the Sony has loads of cool things that just help you out, you can review images through the viewfinder, the menus can all be quickly accessed via the viewfinder, so no more gimping around on the back screen. Once you get used to button locations it's getting quicker to just use the viewfinder to do things, so the back screen stays flipped back against the body.
Having really useful info via the viewfinder is nice, obviously the DOF is previewed in real time, as is the exposure. I'm 50:50 on that, but it helps as much as it hinders. It's just different.


Personally I think this interface style is the way forward. Sony's interpretation is the first one, and probably not ideal, but when Canon and Nikon do it I expect they will do it in new ways and develop it to be better and better...


I've bought mine merely as a tool. It will do the job I need for money available the best right now. When it doesn't, I'll move on.



I didn't buy the A65 because the kit lens is a bit average. By the time you add in the decent lens to an A65, you are only £150 ish off the A77, so it's a no brainer for the extra features you get.


I generally agree that Sony are stupid. They could have used NEF, but used ARW format, they have used their own stupid movie storage codecs. They have used a stupid fecking shoe mount, great, but if you just want to use non-flash accessories they don't fit either.


BUT, Nikon and Canon are just as bad. They continue to do some stupid things.

All the camera manufacturers act like children, you just have to always pick the best compromise

Dave

[Xaero]

It's a lovely camera, I eyed one up for a while before deciding to stick with the NEX-5n instead (for size reasons primarily).

I also think the 16mp sensor is better than the 24mp one.

Good luck finding one though. I've not seen one in stock for a while.

[Mr Whippy]

GetCarter said:

You want some downsides to this camera?

Here are DP reviews 'cons'

* In-camera JPEGs don't show off the 24MP sensor to its best extent
* Comparatively strong noise reduction at medium and high ISO settings
* Very noisy raw files at high ISO settings
* Little control over high ISO noise reduction in JPEG mode ('auto' or 'weak')
* Limited control in 10 fps continuous shooting and movie modes
* No live view in 8 or 10 fps continuous shooting modes makes accurate panning very difficult
* Slightly 'laggy' menu system and UI
* Slightly counterintuitive setting of aperture in manual mode
* Awkward to navigate between stills and movie playback modes

Looks like a good camera mind. As good as or better than the equiv Nikon & Canon.

Why wouldn't I buy one? Because when one starts building up a collection of lenses & equipment (which one tends to get locked into), I would prefer not to be in the Sony brand. I'd go for the market leaders every time. More products, more second hand, better choice etc.

I agree on your summation. The Sony lens choice is limited, and they are not cheap. I think as with all things, if you use your head when buying, and think about the right lenses or buying new/2nd hand, will help a lot!
If used Sony stuff is so cheap, then buy it used! It can only become 2nd hand once

Considering Sony are the only ones doing it, and it's relatively new, it's impressive how good it is. As said, once Canon/Nikon start doing it, and throwing new ideas into the pot, and overcoming the downsides, I can see it being the way forward generally!


My counter-comments on the DP review notes.

• JPG are not *awesome*, but you can push JPG a reasonable amount in post (ie, curves to pump some contrast/colour into the image) I'd prefer to have fairly flat JPG that allowed some correction, than heavily processed ones that couldn't be corrected as much without banding and artefacts appearing. I've not looked but I think you can set a preference, but the default is certainly very 'safe' but as said, thats good for post work flexibility.

If you care that much, shoot raw. It won't stop a good photographer getting a good image.

• Turn off noise reduction in the menu. Do it in post where you have control. Or if you care that much, shoot raw and have even more control.

• It's high ISO, so you get noise. It's no worse say, than a 5D.1. Just we are spoilt relatively speaking next to other new cameras.

• If you are shooting high ISO you get noise. I'm fairly certain you can turn this off, then do it in post where you have more control. Any image I shot where I was compromised by needing a high ISO, I'd realise it might need post work. 5 years ago, relying on high ISO was simply not viable, you had to add light, slow the shutter, f-stop down, or just live with a bit of noise.

• Pretty sure you have full control in movie mode (shutter, iso, f-stop) if you want. Controls through full auto through to full manual preferences.

• Agree on the high FPS/live view. The camera is getting maybe 12fps, but you see about 3fps in the viewfinder. Not ideal. Did a quick test and noticed that. However, the focussing seems really nice, and the stabilisation thrown in. I fired off a burst and every single image looked good. Another one of those 50:50 things, better in some ways, worse in others.

• UI seems a tad laggy, but it's consistent. It's certainly not slow. It really doesn't interfere with you using the camera, it's merely an observable characteristic. I read that and just checked, and it's obvious when you are told, but till then I thought it was fine!

• No idea what that means. I just roll a dial as per a 2 command wheel Nikon, and the aperture moves up and down.

• Not really tried that. The swapping of modes does seem a bit clunky (16:9 > 4:3 mode change lag?), but no worse than any other SLR treats those things.

Dave

Edited by Mr Whippy on Wednesday 14th March 13:54

Edited by Mr Whippy on Wednesday 14th March 13:55

[Simpo Two]

Druid said:

_dobbo_ said:

Out of interest, why do you need 24 megapixels?

Imagine how good my photographs will be!

Tongue-in-cheek I hope! I shoot all my work on 10 or 12Mp and nobody's ever said 'Well it's not bad but it needs more pixels'

Druid said:

theres also groundbreaking Translucent Mirror Technology, you can focus and shoot simultaneously and continuous shooting of up to 10 frames per second!

How many times do you plan to do that? Wouldn't a video camera be a better tool?

But yes, go for it. It should keep you busy for years

[Druid]

The depth of knowledge on here is fantastic and I'm considering all the info, thanks.

I do apologise for some of my tongue in cheek comments but am not ashamed of my ignorance of camera specs.

I do though need to see beyond excellent advertising methods and achieve a purchase of a good camera for around £1k, I suppose with my level of expertise I wouldn't be disappointed with any but this Sony has really got me by the orbs!

The shipped lenses with the A65/A77 kits, are they really that different?

[Simpo Two]

The hard part for you, as a newbie, is knowing what bullet points are important/useful and which are not. And which have been invented to make the list look longer than the rivals.

'Translucent Mirror Technology'. Wowsers! Where do I sign?

But do I need it? No. Will it make my photos look better? No.



But as you say, any DSLR is - and I mean this nicely - going to be better than you are, at least to start with. So jump in and go for it. If, in a year or two, you grow out of it or find it limiting somehow, then you can always sell it and move on.

[Mr Whippy]

The A65 kit will be a good starter camera.

I know lenses are expensive, it's just a shame that many cameras go out with a kit lens that doesn't do the camera justice. I bet the A65 with the 16-50 would be a great combo. I think that kit is available but not in the UK!?


If you DO get an A65, then I'd consider the Sony 1.8 50mm lens (I think it's about £120). That way you have a decent fast lens that can do some nice shallow DOF and also run in low light fairly well.

You will be blown away by how good a prime lens (one without a zoom), compared to a cheap zoom.


Dave

[nellyleelephant]

Or look out for a second-hand Minolta 50mm 1.7, £70-£80.

[tr7v8]

nellyleelephant said:

Or look out for a second-hand Minolta 50mm 1.7, £70-£80.

There is a huge pool of very good Minolta lenses out there, hence why I bought a KM 5D as I already had a Minolta 7000 with the relevant lenses.